[Clark Smith] An open discussion about wine and the industry

[zinguy]

Where do you think the industry is headed in terms of wine pricing structure? Will the current economy influence what wineries charge for their wine, e.g. does the economy (somehow) dictate the pricing structure? And how do wineries set prices for their wine? Is it based on labor intensity, location, past accolades, market demand, or a little of all of the above?

This is a great question.  The wine market has changed a great deal in the last ten years, expanding 50-fold into a distribution network set up to handle much less traffic without differentiating itself.  Thus many more changes are in store.

When you buy an obscure brand, you should check the internet price to keep everybody honest.  But you don't because you have to pay shipping.  All of this is going to change when Amazon.com kicks in with free shipping and nationwide pricing.  It's going to level the playing field, because suddenly you'll be able to buy any wine delivered direct to your house for a competitive cost you can shop with your iPhone right there in the store.

That's good advice about checking the internet for pricing. I typically do that and find many stores that seem to overprice the wine, so I stay away. What's irritating is sometimes I can find a bottle of wine on the internet and the price I pay for the bottle plus shipping may be equal to what I find in a local store. I heard about Amazon.com's interest in selling wine online. Interesting. They aren't really offering free shipping, are they? If they are, they will definitely impact other online stores.

[winesmith]

Where do you think the industry is headed in terms of wine pricing structure? Will the current economy influence what wineries charge for their wine, e.g. does the economy (somehow) dictate the pricing structure? And how do wineries set prices for their wine? Is it based on labor intensity, location, past accolades, market demand, or a little of all of the above?

This is a great question.  The wine market has changed a great deal in the last ten years, expanding 50-fold into a distribution network set up to handle much less traffic without differentiating itself.  Thus many more changes are in store.

When you buy an obscure brand, you should check the internet price to keep everybody honest.  But you don't because you have to pay shipping.  All of this is going to change when Amazon.com kicks in with free shipping and nationwide pricing.  It's going to level the playing field, because suddenly you'll be able to buy any wine delivered direct to your house for a competitive cost you can shop with your iPhone right there in the store.

That's good advice about checking the internet for pricing. I typically do that and find many stores that seem to overprice the wine, so I stay away. What's irritating is sometimes I can find a bottle of wine on the internet and the price I pay for the bottle plus shipping may be equal to what I find in a local store. I heard about Amazon.com's interest in selling wine online. Interesting. They aren't really offering free shipping, are they? If they are, they will definitely impact other online stores.

Amazon has a program called Amazon Prime in which you pay $80 per year and get free shipping on books, music and everything else they sell.  The plan is to sweep wine into this coverage at no extra charge.  Awesome, no?

[zinguy]

Where do you think the industry is headed in terms of wine pricing structure? Will the current economy influence what wineries charge for their wine, e.g. does the economy (somehow) dictate the pricing structure? And how do wineries set prices for their wine? Is it based on labor intensity, location, past accolades, market demand, or a little of all of the above?

This is a great question.  The wine market has changed a great deal in the last ten years, expanding 50-fold into a distribution network set up to handle much less traffic without differentiating itself.  Thus many more changes are in store.

When you buy an obscure brand, you should check the internet price to keep everybody honest.  But you don't because you have to pay shipping.  All of this is going to change when Amazon.com kicks in with free shipping and nationwide pricing.  It's going to level the playing field, because suddenly you'll be able to buy any wine delivered direct to your house for a competitive cost you can shop with your iPhone right there in the store.

That's good advice about checking the internet for pricing. I typically do that and find many stores that seem to overprice the wine, so I stay away. What's irritating is sometimes I can find a bottle of wine on the internet and the price I pay for the bottle plus shipping may be equal to what I find in a local store. I heard about Amazon.com's interest in selling wine online. Interesting. They aren't really offering free shipping, are they? If they are, they will definitely impact other online stores.

Amazon has a program called Amazon Prime in which you pay $80 per year and get free shipping on books, music and everything else they sell.  The plan is to sweep wine into this coverage at no extra charge.  Awesome, no?

That sounds like a kick-ass plan.

[enobytes]

Hi Clark, I'd like to throw a log on the fire and interrupt this conversation to talk about wine critic methodologies in tasting and reviewing wines. You sparked my interest with a comment you stated a while back about supporting distinctive wines and single vineyard minimalists. I started to question how critics would accomplish this - they can't if they taste blindly.

This is a big topic, but a hugely important one.  In a nutshell, I think the paradigm by which we judge wines is grossly flawed and needs replacing.

I have already spoken about the utter silliness of the 100 point scale, or any linear scale.   It creates a small number of winners as if we all appreciated wine identically, and leaves in the dust all other wines marked as losers.  Would we put up with a 100 point scale for music?  I mean, ALL music, all crammed together into one?  What crap.  So why do we allow it for wine?  Are we nuts?

Any scoring system should exist within a classification based on consumer expectation of wine style.  Here's a perfect (but extreme) example.  I'm vacationing in Mexico and eager to try the local stuff, so yesterday I picked up a bottle of Mexican red, and took it to dinner with a steak.  Imagine my shock to find it had maybe 5% residual sugar!  Then I looked harder at the label.  The wine type was "Sangre de Christo" - blood of Christ.  Ah-ha.  This was sacramental wine, made to be sipped out of a chalice on Sunday mornings, not consumed with a steak by some gringo at a dinner joint.  Imagining (with effort) myself in that situation, I considered that it was, indeed, perfect for church.  Oops.

Another example was a recent Napa Cabernet tasting, where a wine was rejected for having a) merely medium body, b) an inappropriately high acidity and minerality, and c) a trace of VA.  Then we found out it was a Mayacamas.  OK, that's different.  Here's a wine which is famous and well loved for exactly those characteristics....

I recommend you stop talking about this and start doing it.  You'll never look back.

So when you talk about how systems should exist within a classification based on consumer expectation of wine style, you are essentially suggesting we use a European method, e.g. when you by a Burgundy from France, you pretty much know exactly what to expect, right? The difference in your method is that drives down to an even lower level where you identify typicity for each AVA, not just a general region, e.g. Carneros, e.g. Burgundy. Am I on track?

About ratings - so do all of the wines you taste fall into one of three categories, e.g. Gold, Silver, Bronze? What do you do with the wines that don't make Bronze status? I would think they'd have to fit into some sort of classification.

[enobytes]

I want to remind everyone that we are wrapping up this session today, so please submit any last minute questions as soon as possible.

[winesmith]

Hi Clark, I'd like to throw a log on the fire and interrupt this conversation to talk about wine critic methodologies in tasting and reviewing wines. You sparked my interest with a comment you stated a while back about supporting distinctive wines and single vineyard minimalists. I started to question how critics would accomplish this - they can't if they taste blindly.

This is a big topic, but a hugely important one.  In a nutshell, I think the paradigm by which we judge wines is grossly flawed and needs replacing.

I have already spoken about the utter silliness of the 100 point scale, or any linear scale.   It creates a small number of winners as if we all appreciated wine identically, and leaves in the dust all other wines marked as losers.  Would we put up with a 100 point scale for music?  I mean, ALL music, all crammed together into one?  What crap.  So why do we allow it for wine?  Are we nuts?

Any scoring system should exist within a classification based on consumer expectation of wine style.  Here's a perfect (but extreme) example.  I'm vacationing in Mexico and eager to try the local stuff, so yesterday I picked up a bottle of Mexican red, and took it to dinner with a steak.  Imagine my shock to find it had maybe 5% residual sugar!  Then I looked harder at the label.  The wine type was "Sangre de Christo" - blood of Christ.  Ah-ha.  This was sacramental wine, made to be sipped out of a chalice on Sunday mornings, not consumed with a steak by some gringo at a dinner joint.  Imagining (with effort) myself in that situation, I considered that it was, indeed, perfect for church.  Oops.

Another example was a recent Napa Cabernet tasting, where a wine was rejected for having a) merely medium body, b) an inappropriately high acidity and minerality, and c) a trace of VA.  Then we found out it was a Mayacamas.  OK, that's different.  Here's a wine which is famous and well loved for exactly those characteristics....

I recommend you stop talking about this and start doing it.  You'll never look back.

So when you talk about how systems should exist within a classification based on consumer expectation of wine style, you are essentially suggesting we use a European method, e.g. when you by a Burgundy from France, you pretty much know exactly what to expect, right? The difference in your method is that drives down to an even lower level where you identify typicity for each AVA, not just a general region, e.g. Carneros, e.g. Burgundy. Am I on track?

About ratings - so do all of the wines you taste fall into one of three categories, e.g. Gold, Silver, Bronze? What do you do with the wines that don't make Bronze status? I would think they'd have to fit into some sort of classification.

Yes, you have the general idea. Our traditions will for centuries to come be more experimental than in Europe, and it seems that one unique varietal/style may never take over our regions as is the norm there.  For now, I need to chronicle, say, Cabernet Franc everywhere it is made, and record the emerging local styles.  But each region growing CF may have dozens of other important varietals and sometimes multiple styles of each.  Dry Creek is not one thing, the way Beaujolais is Beaujolais.  What these systems share is a respect for diversity.  Chinon, Graves and St. Emillion may all be Cab Franc, but you wouldn't score them as such, blind and without reference to their regional expectations.

We actually award Silver and Gold -- no Bronze, but these are not like medals at fairs.  They are awards for typicity.  A Silver is a good example of the type - something you'd buy to go with dinner, knowing what you're getting; a Gold is a compelling example -- something you'd buy to show someone unfamiliar with the type, to help them "get it."  They're really a mark of status rather than a prize -- if people spoke French I'd rather call them premier cru and grand premier cru, as in France.

[enobytes]

Hi Clark, I'd like to throw a log on the fire and interrupt this conversation to talk about wine critic methodologies in tasting and reviewing wines. You sparked my interest with a comment you stated a while back about supporting distinctive wines and single vineyard minimalists. I started to question how critics would accomplish this - they can't if they taste blindly.

This is a big topic, but a hugely important one.  In a nutshell, I think the paradigm by which we judge wines is grossly flawed and needs replacing.

I have already spoken about the utter silliness of the 100 point scale, or any linear scale.   It creates a small number of winners as if we all appreciated wine identically, and leaves in the dust all other wines marked as losers.  Would we put up with a 100 point scale for music?  I mean, ALL music, all crammed together into one?  What crap.  So why do we allow it for wine?  Are we nuts?

Any scoring system should exist within a classification based on consumer expectation of wine style.  Here's a perfect (but extreme) example.  I'm vacationing in Mexico and eager to try the local stuff, so yesterday I picked up a bottle of Mexican red, and took it to dinner with a steak.  Imagine my shock to find it had maybe 5% residual sugar!  Then I looked harder at the label.  The wine type was "Sangre de Christo" - blood of Christ.  Ah-ha.  This was sacramental wine, made to be sipped out of a chalice on Sunday mornings, not consumed with a steak by some gringo at a dinner joint.  Imagining (with effort) myself in that situation, I considered that it was, indeed, perfect for church.  Oops.

Another example was a recent Napa Cabernet tasting, where a wine was rejected for having a) merely medium body, b) an inappropriately high acidity and minerality, and c) a trace of VA.  Then we found out it was a Mayacamas.  OK, that's different.  Here's a wine which is famous and well loved for exactly those characteristics....

I recommend you stop talking about this and start doing it.  You'll never look back.

So when you talk about how systems should exist within a classification based on consumer expectation of wine style, you are essentially suggesting we use a European method, e.g. when you by a Burgundy from France, you pretty much know exactly what to expect, right? The difference in your method is that drives down to an even lower level where you identify typicity for each AVA, not just a general region, e.g. Carneros, e.g. Burgundy. Am I on track?

About ratings - so do all of the wines you taste fall into one of three categories, e.g. Gold, Silver, Bronze? What do you do with the wines that don't make Bronze status? I would think they'd have to fit into some sort of classification.

Yes, you have the general idea. Our traditions will for centuries to come be more experimental than in Europe, and it seems that one unique varietal/style may never take over our regions as is the norm there.  For now, I need to chronicle, say, Cabernet Franc everywhere it is made, and record the emerging local styles.  But each region growing CF may have dozens of other important varietals and sometimes multiple styles of each.  Dry Creek is not one thing, the way Beaujolais is Beaujolais.  What these systems share is a respect for diversity.  Chinon, Graves and St. Emillion may all be Cab Franc, but you wouldn't score them as such, blind and without reference to their regional expectations.

We actually award Silver and Gold -- no Bronze, but these are not like medals at fairs.  They are awards for typicity.  A Silver is a good example of the type - something you'd buy to go with dinner, knowing what you're getting; a Gold is a compelling example -- something you'd buy to show someone unfamiliar with the type, to help them "get it."  They're really a mark of status rather than a prize -- if people spoke French I'd rather call them premier cru and grand premier cru, as in France.

Got it! So it seems as though this is a big shift in what we (Enobytes) are doing right now as far as wine reviews and ratings go. It will take a large undertaking for us to peruse this direction (not to mention a large learning curve) but I see a lot of value and potential in this methodology. For one, it drives consumer expectation, thus assisting consumers in making wise buying decisions. It also removes bias since one would essentially award wine based on blue book values. No more, "it's not my style of wine, so I'll rate it low". It seems like a win-win situation for both consumers and Winemakers alike. Now off to head up a conversation with a few others on our panel. Thanks Clark.

[enobytes]

When awarding wines, how do you deal with pricing structure, e.g. it may not be fair to taste a $10 next to a $50 wine, or is price not a consideration? 

[winesmith]

When awarding wines, how do you deal with pricing structure, e.g. it may not be fair to taste a $10 next to a $50 wine, or is price not a consideration? 

In practice, funny enough, the fairness works the other way 'round.  In our panels, price is not considered, but I do look at them when writing up the wines and will mention a good value. 

I'm not strong on this point either way.  I like price categories in some of the fairs I judge, though I do think the cheaper wines get a bad deal.  I personally always enter the high priced categories even with my cheap wines, because the judges are handing out more medals there.  I once got a double Gold for a $10 Cabernet by entering it in the over $50 category.  In a cheaper flight, it might not have faired as well.

I think Dan Berger is right that price and quality aren't stongly related.  You can certainly get very different styles at different price points, such as in white Bordeaux.  Sometimes you say "Hey, that's a great $30 chardonnay, but I wouldn't want to have to sell it for $7!"

[enobytes]

When awarding wines, how do you deal with pricing structure, e.g. it may not be fair to taste a $10 next to a $50 wine, or is price not a consideration? 

In practice, funny enough, the fairness works the other way 'round.  In our panels, price is not considered, but I do look at them when writing up the wines and will mention a good value. 

I'm not strong on this point either way.  I like price categories in some of the fairs I judge, though I do think the cheaper wines get a bad deal.  I personally always enter the high priced categories even with my cheap wines, because the judges are handing out more medals there.  I once got a double Gold for a $10 Cabernet by entering it in the over $50 category.  In a cheaper flight, it might not have faired as well.

I think Dan Berger is right that price and quality aren't strongly related.  You can certainly get very different styles at different price points, such as in white Bordeaux.  Sometimes you say "Hey, that's a great $30 chardonnay, but I wouldn't want to have to sell it for $7!"

Double Gold for a $10 Cabernet - priceless!

On this note, we'll wrap up the discussion and get you off the hot seat. Clark, thank you for your participation - It's been an absolute pleasure having you aboard.

Forum members, if you have additional questions for Clark, you can reach him over at grapecrafter.com

[johnj]

Thanks Clark, it was a pleasure speaking with you.

[winesmith]

Thanks Clark, it was a pleasure speaking with you.

My pleasure.

Let me know how your diversity tasting goes.  I hope my notes prove of value.

[zinguy]

Clark, have you completed the blue book for any of the AVAs that focus on Zinfandel? I'm looking for a few fine examples. 

[enobytes]

Clark, have you completed the blue book for any of the AVAs that focus on Zinfandel? I'm looking for a few fine examples. 

Hey zin, since we officially closed this segment, you might have better luck contacting Clark over at grapecrafter.com